Abstract
With the importance of the early years of a child’s life to their learning and development, it is important that early childhood educators are skilled, reflective professionals who have the ability to actively support the learning of all children. Using a capability approach to human development as an evaluative framework, this article explores how early childhood educators across three early childhood services understand and take up the challenge of catering for diversity in children’s learning. Educators with a social justice outlook are acknowledged as believing in the capacity of all children to succeed despite the circumstances of their lives or their abilities. While there are many real strengths that the educators in this study are saying, observing, reflecting on and doing, none of the educators mentioned children from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds as targets of their social justice work. The call is for educators to be more reflective of themselves and their practice to bring into focus the ‘unchallenged’ related to decision-making and professional judgements about programs and pedagogy, the ‘unseen’ such as children from underprivileged backgrounds, and the ‘under-valued’ being their own capabilities or those of their colleagues that remain untapped in their social justice work in relation to young children’s learning and development. This research aims to raise awareness of the need for educators to consider the context within which they work and what this may mean for the experiences and situations of the children with whom they work.
Introduction and background
There is clear evidence that the early years of a child’s life have a profound impact on their development, wellbeing and learning, with investment in these early years having lifelong outcomes (Council of Australian Governments (COAG), 2013; Moore and McDonald, 2013). Investing in the early years: A national early childhood development strategy (COAG, 2009) is Australia’s response to improving outcomes for young children through a collaborative effort of all Australian governments to achieve the vision that ‘by 2020 all children have the best start in life to create a better future for themselves and the nation’ (p.4). This strategy is the broad umbrella for the COAG reform agenda that sets out to improve the quality of early childhood education and care (ECEC) services. The ‘universal access’ policy (COAG, 2013) in conjunction with the National Early Childhood Development Strategy (COAG, 2009) was launched to ensure all children have the best start in life. Universal Access purports that all children have access to quality early childhood programs regardless of their ethnicity, diversity and location; however, inequality in early childhood education and care persists, with evidence highlighting the difference in children who meet educational milestones at school entry as largely attributable to differences in access and participation in quality ECEC services (Lamb et al., 2015).
In a recent landmark Australian study two major challenges have emerged: 1) how to improve the quality of programs (seen as instructional support), so that all children benefit; and 2) how to ensure that children from disadvantaged backgrounds enter the programs that demonstrate high-quality educator-child interactions at an early age. This research confirms that ‘certain teaching and learning dimensions within a program make a significant difference to children’s achievement outcomes’ (Tayler et al., 2015: 6) and calls for investment in the ECEC workforce to further develop skills in promoting children’s learning. These findings add to the strong evidence on the link between quality services and staff professionalization in the ECEC sector. The upskilling of the workforce is seen as a way of ensuring the effective implementation of the policy reforms which include catering for the diversity of children and families who engage with early childhood services (Productivity Commission, 2011). As noted elsewhere (Molla and Nolan, 2017), the professionalization of the ECEC workforce focuses on building pedagogical competence and cultivating professional dispositions. This includes social justice intentionality and cultural sensitivity. Educators’ role in promoting social justice is through the provision of learning experiences for children to achieve equity goals as outlined in practice guidelines. Through critical reflection, educators are expected to identify children who could benefit from additional support in their learning, provide that support, and assist families to access specialist services if required (Department of Education Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR), 2009). ‘The intent is to ensure that all children’s experiences are recognized and valued’ (DEEWR, 2009: 24). Lifting the quality of early childhood services by the professionalization of the workforce has caused tensions in the ECEC sector in Australia (Irvine et al., 2016). This reform agenda aspires for all early childhood educators to be skilled, reflective professionals who have the ability to actively support the learning of all children, however, the ECEC workforce is diverse in qualifications, experience, and backgrounds.
Using a capability approach to human development (Sen, 1987, 2009) as an evaluative framework this article explores how early childhood educators across three early childhood services understand and take up the challenge of catering for diversity in children’s learning and development. It will focus on how educators understand and enact Government policy expectations determining what informs their pedagogic work when supporting children’s learning. It highlights the conversion factors that determine what is enabling or constraining these educators to turn their ‘endowments’ (Büttner, 2011: 73) into a functioning. Questions that guide this exploration include:
How able is the ECEC workforce to cater for all children’s learning and development? Is there a discord between policy expectations and educators’ practise in relation to this? What does this mean for the ECEC workforce, and for children and their families?
Project
The data that informs this article is drawn from the larger corpus of data of the Every educator matters project funded by the Australian Research Council (DP150104534); a study which focused on early childhood educators as agents in improving intergenerational educational outcomes. The authors of this paper were Chief Investigators (CIs) on this project. The project utilised a mixed method design, partially due to the success of the design in the large UK ECEC workforce study Effective provision of pre-school education project, where findings were considered ‘more meaningful’ and provided ‘a wider evidence base for both policymakers and practitioners than reliance on any one form of data gathering and approach to analysis would have achieved’ (Siraj-Blatchford et al., 2006: 77). Secondary quantitative data consisted of Australian and international career and workforce datasets, while the qualitative data comprised of selected case studies – early childhood centres. It is the case study data that informs this paper.
Methodology
Working from an interpretive paradigm, this study is concerned with individual’s understanding of the subjective world of human experience (Cohen et al., 2011). It focuses on how participants interpret the world around them. This acknowledges that people are deliberate in their actions, they act intentionally, and it is through these actions that they make meanings (Blumer, 1969). The interpretive paradigm also allows for thick descriptions of practice which are one means by which external validity and generalisability are established for qualitative studies (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). Sufficiently detailed descriptions, in this instance of early childhood centres, allow readers to evaluate which conclusions – and to what degree – are applicable beyond the limited setting examined. Part of what enables such judgements is the researcher’s skill in adequately contextualising any patterns of cultural and social relationships that are observed (Holloway, 1997).
The analysis of the interview transcripts and field notes collected by researchers while attending each participating early childhood centre were coded using thematic analysis as described by Braun and Clarke (2006) where the researcher familiarises herself with the data, noting preliminary comments and ideas, then generates initial coding by systematically coding the whole dataset. Similar codes are then collated into potential themes, which are subsequently reviewed to check that the themes work in relation to the dataset and to search for any examples that do not fit. Themes are then refined relating to the specifics of each theme and the linkages between themes. Propositions are generated, and complexity and associations become part of the search.
Capability approach
According to Sen (1999; 2009), the notion of capability provides the most comprehensive framework by which to conceptualise human development. The approach affords a ‘concentration on freedom to achieve in general and the capabilities to function in particular’ (Sen, 1995: 266). Using the capability approach in this study enables an exploration of what opportunities early childhood educators have to be, and do, what they have reason to value in their professional practices. It focuses on the resources available to them to aid them with their work and their ability to take up these resources and convert them into valuable ‘functionings’, a concept described below. In other words, the right to be a professional can be considered a resource; however, the convertability of this into capabilities provided by policy depends on conversion factors. These conversion factors can be personal biographies, social factors, socio-economic status, and social arrangements such as policies and regulations (Robeyns, 2005; Sen, 1999). Within this approach the role of adaptive aspirations, which link objective constraints with conditioned perceptions and responses, are recognised. This acknowledges that personal aspirations are shaped through socialisation and historical experiences (Nussbaum, 2000; Sen, 1987), and these influence a person’s agency. For example, people may scale down their expectations depending on their circumstances (Elster, 1983).
The Evaluative Spaces of Professional Functionings framework (Molla and Nolan, 2018) was developed as a way to understand professional capabilities of the early childhood education and care workforce through the assessment of ‘functionings’, the beings and doings of professionals, as actual usage of the capabilities people are endowed with (Büttner, 2011). As Sen suggests, ‘A functioning is an achievement, whereas a capability is the ability to achieve’ (1987: 36), therefore the ability to achieve functionings ‘reflects the person’s real opportunities or freedom of choice’ (Saito, 2003: 21). The Evaluative Spaces of Professional Functionings framework has been developed from the research literature relating to the concept of a profession, teacher professionalization, and Sen’s capability approach. It identifies key dimensions of professional practices of educators including: expertise, deliberation, recognition, responsiveness, and integrity. The framework enables the identification of how educators understand and enact Government policy expectations, determining what informs their pedagogic work as a professional.
Responsiveness, as an Evaluative Space of Professional Functionings (Molla and Nolan, 2018), acts as the sensitizing concept. This provides a direction of where to look in the data (Blumer, 1954), and acts as a starting point for the research (Padgett, 2007). Policy analysis of key early childhood policy documents established ‘Responsiveness’ as relating to cultural competence and social justice dispositions (Molla and Nolan, 2018). For example, Belonging, being & becoming: The early years learning framework for Australia (EYLF), a national document to guide practice, defines cultural competence as more than just being aware of cultural differences but also having the ability and skills to effectively communicate and interact across the different cultures, being respectful of multiple ways of knowing and being (DEEWR, 2009). As the EYLF states, the curriculum needs to value and reflect families' traditions, cultures, histories and lifestyle choices (DEEWR, 2009). Educators with a social justice outlook are acknowledged as believing in the capacity of all children ‘to succeed, regardless of diverse circumstances and abilities’ (DEEWR, 2009, p.12), and meeting these needs is a hallmark of a responsive educator (Standing Council on School Education and Early Childhood (SCSEEC), 2012).
Location
Three Victorian Local Government Areas (LGSs) were selected for the Every educator matters project case studies informed by the quantitative data analysis. These LGAs were identified as being broadly representative of the Victorian population, as detailed below. Within each of these locations, five to six ECEC services were selected, each with diverse service and community contexts. The focus was on capturing the experiences of all educators and service providers within each selected service. The intent was to gain a rounded understanding of the practises, philosophy, work culture and dynamics within service teams in each centre, from the differing perspectives of staff in a variety of work roles and at differing qualification levels. As such, a purposive sampling strategy (Patton, 2002) was used to ensure that the data captured social differences in Victorian communities, variations in ECEC services and variations in the ECEC workforce. However, we recognise that, despite these efforts, all case study samples provide limited generalisability of results (Hamel, 1993). Four kinds of differences in service and community contexts were considered when selecting ECEC services in each LGA, including location characteristics (regional and metropolitan), the educational disadvantage of client families, service type (long day care – full-day program for children aged from birth to 6 years with an emphasis on care, preschool – stand-alone sessional educational program for children the year before school entry) and provider type (private for-profit, community not-for-profit, local government, non-government operations), and quality as determined by the Australian National Quality Standard (NQS) – a rating awarded to benchmark the quality of services. Approval to conduct the study was gained from the two participating universities ethics committees as well as the relevant government department that had oversight of the early childhood services. Researchers spent 1–2 days at each service completing interviews and observing centres’ physical layout, resources, culture and operations. Brief observational notes were taken, which were used to generate thick descriptions (Lincoln and Guba, 1985; Denzin 1989) of each centre that were later shared across members of the research team to enrich the analysis of the interview data. Individual participants’ consent was gained by researchers prior to interviews. All of the interviews were audio recorded and then transcribed in full. The interviews were conducted using a semi-structured interview schedule.
The sub-study, which is the focus of this paper, comprised of three long day care centres (Acacia, Banksia and Telopea – pseudonyms) in one of the three LGAs – Byron. Byron is located within the western suburbs of metropolitan Melbourne with a relatively high level of disadvantage. The socio-economic-status (SES) of all participating service locations were allocated using the SEIFA Index of Relative Socio-Economic Disadvantage (IRSD) quintiles by postcode (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2011). The IRSD is based on sixteen variables that together describe the economic and social conditions of individuals and households in areas. Some of these variables are home ownership, disability status, educational attainment, English proficiency, income and unemployment rates. All services in this study were in locations where the IRSD rating was 1 (a low score indicates relatively greater disadvantage in general).
The three centres held different NQS ratings with Acacia rated as ‘Working towards National Quality Standard’, Banksia rated as ‘Exceeding National Quality Standard’, and Telopea rated as ‘Meeting National Quality Standard’. The three centres also included differing organisational configurations with one being not-for-profit community-based (Acacia), and the other two being privately owned for profit centres – one of which was a major private provider of children’s services (Telopea). It is important to note that all three centres offered a funded preschool educational program.
Participants
In total, 19 participants across the three centres were interviewed. At each centre educators at each qualification level (Certificate III – the lowest qualification required to work in ECEC services; Diploma – 2-year vocational qualification; Degree/Masters – 4-year university qualification) were included in the sample. The study sample also included a spread of participants across the range of work roles typically found in ECEC services. While predominantly educators who worked directly with children and their families, there was also representation from centre directors. All but one interviewee was female.
Findings and discussion
The data informing this paper were taken from the interview transcripts of the three services located in Byron relating to questions around educators’ perceptions of factors influencing young children’s learning and development, the identification and accommodation of diverse learning needs, the influence of distinctive characteristics of children and families on practice, and educators’ confidence in their practice. This section of the paper is presented under two topic headings: ‘Supporting young children’s learning and development’ and ‘Influences on responsiveness’.
Supporting young children’s learning and development
The NQS sets the benchmark for ECEC and outside school hours care services in Australia, identifying seven quality areas that impact outcomes for children (Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority (ACECQA), n.d.). The NQS has a strong focus on individual child outcomes while recognising the ‘uniqueness of services, educators and communities’ (ACECQA, 2015: 6). This means that service providers and educators are authorised to meet the standards for their service in ‘a way that is meaningful, relevant and achievable for each service’, (p.6). The expectation for ‘Quality Area 1: Educational program and practice’ (ACECQA, 2017) includes the following standards to guide educators’ practice: 1.1 An approved learning framework informs the development of a curriculum that enhances each child’s learning and development. 1.2 Educators and co-ordinators are focused, active and reflective in designing and delivering the program for each child.
In our data, accommodating interests was viewed as the way through which an educator could meet each child’s developmental ‘needs’, as the following educator statements illustrate: Planning, we work alongside with families, so if there's an interest built on the child, if Mum or Dad have come and said, ‘My son or daughter are interested in…’ – it could be flowers, it may be insects, it could be anything, so we put that in the program, and we extend on that. (AEd2) We try to do, like, more focused on individual’s interest in learning, it is pretty challenging. (BEd1) We care for the kid, anything, like, show interest first, yes. If they've got a need, we help, whatever they want, we help. Yes. We stay here to help the kids and make sure they learning, they happy. (BEd5)
Discourses relating to quality and effectiveness of early learning position play as integral to educational outcomes, with play ‘embedded in policy frameworks’ (Wood, 2010: 12). This is true of the documents that guide practice in Australia, with ‘learning through play’ one of the five principles of early childhood pedagogy in the EYLF (DEEWR, 2009). Play is accredited as providing opportunities for children’s learning, and through children’s engagement in play ‘positive dispositions towards learning’ are promoted (DEEWR, 2009:15). All educators noted play as the medium that supports young children’s learning: I think the play make a difference. When the kids play they doesn’t feel they learn and they doesn’t feel like, oh they really need to sit and learn. And that, especially with the challenging kids. And I thinks that’s the best way, when they play. (AEd1)
Providing a play-based program supported by pedagogy considered ‘appropriate’ such as educators modelling, facilitating, supporting, scaffolding, and co-constructing (Beecher et al., 2001) was considered by educators across all three centres as being responsive to and supportive of children’s learning. The philosophy policy in this centre is play-based. So we don’t force the children to sit down and hear us talking five minutes but the children want to go play. We incorporate play for them to learn. So we provide things that they can enjoy and while enjoying they can learn. (TEd5)
A play-based program is accompanied by a recognised pedagogy of ‘appropriateness’ that includes ‘a balance between child led, child initiated and educator supported learning’ (DEEWR, 2009: 15). The educators spoke of modelling behaviours for children such as respect and fairness, giving children ideas, and being ‘intentional’ in what is shared and how it is shared with children. There was a tension in the data between the level of support provided to the child and the form that support took. As noted below: But sometimes some kids they need to be pushed more because some of them they doesn’t want to exactly get it through the learn. You have to find, and that’s hard to find with child what’s needed, is more professionals. (AEd1). I think the most difference, they learn through play. We not push the children too much, if you push the children too much, they are stressed and they don’t want to do it, they say they are scared, so, we try to teach them slowly, and then during their play, so we push for them to learn too, yeah, we push inside. (BEd3)
Appropriateness of programs was also judged against the child’s age, interest, ability, and level of enjoyment, with some educators setting learning goals in conjunction with parents/families. Only one educator noted the influence of the home as a factor that makes a difference to how well children learn. ‘I heard it’s 80 percent come from home, 20 [percent] from here. Which is, I can see many kids with the struggle home’ (AEd1).
For children deemed as having difficulty learning, extra support was provided either from a visiting external expert or by having an extra person (another educator) in the room to assist. Strategies that were currently employed to work with these children included ‘to go slowly’ (BEd3), utilise specialist resources (BEd4), and not to ‘push’ the child in their learning (BEd5). Little mention in the data was made of children with additional needs. Of the 19 educators interviewed, two (from the same centre) mentioned children with ‘special needs’ as having an influence on practice. For these two educators, this influence equated to being ‘more gentle’ when interacting with the child (BEd3), being more informed about the child’s condition, and utilising specialised resources such as communication cards (BEd4).
Educator knowledge was linked to knowing how best young children learn and the most suitable ways this can be supported. Many educators spoke about the need to build their own knowledge when working with a child who is having difficulty learning. This learning was sourced through conversations with the parents to ascertain as much information about the child as possible. In fact, this was a common strategy across all centres, as was attending relevant professional development sessions. Reading and researching using Google were also noted as ways to gain information that could then be used in programming for the child: There’s always someone, and there's always a library to go to read. There’s always Google as well. So if you ask the right questions you'll get the right answers… The only way children will learn and to grow up is to educators – us doing our research, making sure that we know and understand what we're doing before we teach them. Because if you don't have the knowledge you won't be able to teach children. And it’s got to be something that they’re interested in, otherwise – or make it interesting for them, otherwise they won’t grasp it. (AEd2).
For Educator 1 at Telopea centre, this knowledge was gained through trial and error, with reflecting on practice considered an important pedagogical tool. The EYLF lists ‘ongoing learning and reflective practice’ as one of the five principles that underpin quality practice (DEEWR, 2009). The document situates reflective practice as ‘a form of ongoing learning that involves engaging with questions of philosophy, ethics and practice’ with the purpose of gathering information to ‘inform and enrich decision-making about children’s learning’ (p.13). Educators incorporated reflection as part of their professional practice in the form of evaluating the experiences on offer and how children engaged with these and considering how children’s interests could be best supported within the program.
The accessibility and availability of resources was also noted by educators across the three centres as important to aid children’s learning. When asked what makes the most difference to how well children learn and develop TEd1 suggested resources explaining that ‘without the resources, children aren't able to do much.’ This idea that practice is somehow constrained by the availability of resources is evident in the data, especially regarding extending children’s learning. ‘In order to do a program, you need the resources too. If you're going to start something, you need something to follow through with’ (AEd2). So much importance was placed on the availability of resources that many educators interviewed explained how they subsidised the resources at their centre by purchasing these themselves.
As emphasised within the EYLF, educators were conscious of building strong relationships with the children with whom they worked so they could become ‘attuned to children’s thoughts and feelings’, thereby supporting children’s development of a strong sense of wellbeing (DEEWR, 2009: 12). Building partnerships with families is also prioritised as one of the five principles that underpins quality practice in the EYLF. Educators valued parents as sources of information about their child’s interests and abilities, their aspirations for their child’s learning, and their cultural practices. Parental expectations, aspirations and concerns were noted across the centres as something that influenced educator practice and the program that each educator implemented. Centre educators took note of families' goals and aspirations for their child and ‘work together to try and achieve those goals’ (BEd2), ‘if there's something they [families] want us to go ahead with, we will do it’ (AEd2).
Relatedly, incorporating these expectations did cause tensions for educators when parental understandings did not align with educators’ knowledge or beliefs. Examples in the data show that decision-making appeared to favour the views of the parents being incorporated into the programming with the content delivered in ways that supported educators’ beliefs about how best to educate young children. So put it as a goal, and work with the child but slowly, do not push the child to do something the child doesn’t feel like. But work on it step by step … maybe we can reach the goal (AEd1). Based on the parent’s concerns we try to introduce children to, you know, the alphabets and the numbers and counting as well, but not in that, you know, the school learning sort of perspective, it’s more play-based. They could play with the letters and that more freely (BEd1).
What is very apparent in the data is that the heritage background of the families and children was more salient for educators than other characteristics when considering children’s learning. This manifested in what was considered important to inform practice. While policy expectations emphasise the cultural competence of educators, there is also an expectation that educators will ‘honour the histories, cultures, languages, traditions, child rearing practices and lifestyles choices of families’ while valuing ‘children’s different capacities and abilities and respect for differences in families’ home lives’ (DEEWR, 2009: 13). Educators at all three centres noted awareness of and sensitivity towards the cultural backgrounds and traditions of the children and families at their centre. For example, cultural festivals were celebrated, home languages used where resources were available to support this, and cultural practices were incorporated into the program. However, in the view of one educator at the Acacia centre ‘cultural practices only affect meal times’ (AEd3). This view was certainly not shared by other educators at this centre or across the other centres as the general sentiment expressed was one where the cultural heritage of families influenced a number of aspects of the programming such as food, language used, and activities provided. The incorporation of cultures into the program was seen as a positive inclusion as Educator 5 at Telopea centre stated: Having a diverse family in our room, diverse children in our room, make our curriculum more diverse, I mean, more interesting. For example, we have our Chinese New Year, and then we have like a Filipino special occasion as well, and Australian day, something like that (TEd5).
As noted in the demographic notes of the centre locations and mentioned by many educators when describing the service context in which they worked, services were located in low SES and disadvantaged areas and families attending each centre included those with significant support needs, who were receiving government subsidies. This, however, did not rate a mention when educators spoke about family characteristics that influenced their practice. For example, across all interviews with educators, only one educator (AEd3) raised the socio-economic status of a family when asked about ‘distinctive characteristics’ of children and families that would influence practice. This was then quickly dismissed as an influence on practice as ‘I don’t put that in as a factor because to me what you make or what you pay doesn’t affect the amount of care that we should provide for you’ and was deemed as not influencing her program. The reasoning behind this was: …because a lot of the children’s discussions that we do have are more to do with what we do at the centre. And the things that they do on weekends with their parents, they talk about and we encourage the conversations, but it’s not a key point in our learning. That they’re, you know, some families go away to Sydney, but others don’t. I mean, we talk about trips and planes and things like that, so they understand that it does happen, but those that don’t do it, you know, we talk about driving trips and things like that. So it’s not focused on solely, about the amount of money spent (AEd3).
It is interesting to note that in this example socio-economic status is seen in terms of access to resources for leisure activities rather than consideration of the economic conditions that may impact on a child’s capacity to learn. With research indicating that children living in generational poverty are subject to wider effects on their learning and development such as social exclusion, reduced self-esteem, low self-efficacy and low self-regulation (Ridge, 2002), the impact of disadvantage can be either exacerbated or mitigated by the quality of the service (Melhuish, 2003; Sylva et al., 2004). ‘Living in poverty is predictive of negative outcomes in the early years, schooling and into adult life’ (Simpson et al., 2017: 177). There is clear evidence that the relationships, experiences and environments a child is exposed to in the first few years of life are critical to their long-term health, development, learning and wellbeing and build foundations for future growth (Harrison and Ungerer, 2000; Press and Hayes, 2000; Shonkoff and Phillips, 2000). While the ability of a child to reach their potential and quality of life is mediated by the social and personal consequences of poverty (Hayes, 2008), this appears to be overlooked as something to consider when working with young children. This ‘poverty blindness’ (Ventres and Gusoff, 2014) renders poverty as invisible, as it is excluded from consciousness (p.52).
Influences on responsiveness
The capability approach draws attention to the conversion factors – individual or societal – that influence a person’s ability to convert resources at their disposal into capabilities. It highlights the importance of examining the link between objective constraints with ‘conditioned perceptions’ and ‘disciplined desires’ of individuals (Sen, 1995: 262). Educators’ practice is built from both their personal experiences and backgrounds (Wood and Bennett, 2000), as well as the societal factors such as the values, philosophies and priorities of the workplace that are shaped by policies and regulations. Attention also needs to be focused on the broader, politically correct and cultural attitudes held by communities as well as the training that educators receive, as this shapes understandings which influence practice. Educators bring strengths to their work with young children which can be built upon while addressing the cultural and social aspects that act to constrain them.
There are examples within the data reported in this paper that illustrate the mismatch between policy expectations and educators’ experiences, which undermines their ability to convert the resources they have access to into capabilities as professional early childhood educators. From a close reading of the data there are inherent traces of long-held doctrines of how young children learn best and the pedagogy that is considered most appropriate to support this learning. Play-based learning and a focus on the development of each child as an individual are testament to this. These beliefs about learning and teaching are evident in current key policy documents and embedded in the main document that guides practice – the EYLF. Allowing the child to play is seen as affording ‘a supportive environment where children can ask questions, solve problems and engage in critical thinking’ (DEEWR, 2009: 15). The expectation is that educators create learning environments where children are free to explore, problem solve and construct, while making professional judgements about the best way to facilitate children’s learning. These judgements are informed by each educator’s knowledge, skills, and awareness of how their own understandings and experiences influence children’s learning. As the data has shown, making professional judgements can cause tension for educators if their own beliefs and experiences do not match what is expected. Decision-making can become influenced by parental desires rather than discipline knowledge, or the experience that an educator brings to the situation. Holding high expectations, educators are expected to ‘recognise and respond to barriers to children achieving educational success’ (DEEWR, 2009: 13), yet the data show a lack of educator attention to children experiencing poverty.
It is expected that educators engage in the child’s play in ways that support learning occurring. For example, they need to be able to recognise and utilise ‘teachable moments’ to support children’s learning (DEEWR, 2009: 15). All the educators interviewed listed aspects of their practice where they lacked confidence. These areas included programming and planning – ‘more ideas of experiences to offer’ (TEd5); better ways to implement activities (TEd3); improving knowledge of working with older children (BEd4); improving skills of building relationships with parents (BEd4) and the community (AEd6). A few educators from non-English Speaking (NES) backgrounds wanted to improve their English skills, both written and spoken. If the ability to assist children to learn constitutes educator professional functioning (Tao, 2013), then for these educators there is a need to provide tailored professional learning to support them in achieving policy directives in regard to children’s learning.
Working in partnership with families is valued as one of the principles of practice where collaboration is ‘encouraged about curriculum decisions in order to ensure that learning experiences are meaningful’ (DEEWR, 2009: 12). For the educators in this study, having conversations with parents was seen as an important avenue for finding out further details about a child to inform educator planning and the program on offer. While many educators spoke confidently about meeting with parents, one educator felt hesitant and not confident enough to have such conversations, especially if the conversation involved talking about difficulties children might be experiencing. This shows the level of cultural capital required to enable this to occur and how consideration needs to be given to the resources available to each educator to support them with this aspect of their practice. For Educator 1 at the Acacia centre, her personal experience of being an English as a second language parent taking a child to childcare aligned with many of the parents she now worked with at the centre. However, she was excluded from formal meetings with these parents. Meetings were held between the more highly qualified educator in the room and the parents, a practice not questioned by AEd1. This educator has adapted her aspirations as a result of environmental factors that have influenced her agency in this setting. The exclusion has acted as a constraining factor that has impeded her from converting her personal knowledge and experience into a valued outcome in supporting children’s learning.
Conclusion
As acknowledged by research and enshrined in policies, young children’s early learning experiences set the foundation for later life, especially for those who experience disadvantage (Bennett, 2012; Leseman and Slot, 2014). By focusing on responsiveness as a key attribute in professional functionings, as sanctioned in policy documents and the research literature, we have been able to identify discords between policy expectations and educator experience and practice that work against the realisation of quality practice in relation to children’s learning as set out in policy guidelines. Misalignments between policy and practice occurred in relation to making professional judgements, recognising teachable moments, working closely with families, and recognising and responding to barriers to children achieving success.
The high level of attention focused on cultural heritage overshadowed attention being paid to other equity groups in the sector, in this case children and families from low SES backgrounds. None of the educators in this study mentioned children from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds as targets of their social justice work. This is concerning, as these children may not experience success in programs and activities on offer that include resources they are unfamiliar with (Bradbury, 2013), or are disconnected to the cultural capital in their family homes (Brooker, 2015; Simpson et al., 2017). Coupled with the educators’ desire for professional learning and their perception that how well children learn and develop is influenced by their pedagogy and the resources that are available to them through the play-based program, attention needs to be focused on assisting educators to critically reflect on their practice, to notice what currently remains unnoticed. This could also be addressed through teacher education and related professional learning programs by linking knowledge to practical application.
Critical reflection will enable educators to consider what has shaped who they are as educators, so that current omissions and the under-valuing of their own experiences and the experiences of others can build their capabilities to deliver quality practice as determined by policy expectations. Adaptive aspirations are influenced by our historical experiences and socialisation and shape our expectations of what is believed to be possible. Personal biographies, centre priorities, cultural values and norms, social arrangements, policies and regulations, either directly or indirectly influence a person’s agency. By being aware of the constraints that work against turning capabilities into a functioning, educators can become more agentic in their workplaces. In other words, regardless of the resources people have access to, they may still have diminished professional agency due to their adjusted preferences. Enabling professional agency means removing the constraining factors that hinder educators from converting their professional capital and the capital of their colleagues into valued outcomes including being responsive to the rights of all children they work with and questioning the grounds on which pedagogical decisions are based.
Being deliberative in one’s actions means carefully considering the circumstances or issues and weighing up the merits of available or known options and possible responses before making a judgement (Gale and Molla, 2016). This means bringing ‘unconscious dispositions’ into ‘conscious deliberation’ (Reay, 2004: 438), opening them up to examination and critique. Such action will assist educators to make decisions from a more informed stance, allowing them to consider what acts to constrain their practice influencing the choices available to them. This heightened self-awareness can bring into focus the ‘unchallenged’ related to decision-making and professional judgements about programs and pedagogy, the ‘unseen’ such as children from underprivileged backgrounds, and the ‘under-valued’ being their own capabilities or those of their colleagues that remain untapped in their social justice work in relation to young children’s learning and development.
Footnotes
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Every educator matters project was funded by the Australian Research Council (DP150104535).